The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the victim threatened the defendant, the victim was fluened from the Da and the defense level so that the victim could no longer get off. In this process, the victim became fluor in the smoke fluor, and the fluor in the process that the fluor was fluor in the process that the victim attempted to go out by the victim's driving, which constitutes self-defense, but the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact and convicted the defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is clearly recognized that the victim's behavior who was found to be a wage problem on the day before the crime of this case was committed by the defendant, and the victim respondeded to himself/herself on the day immediately before the crime of this case, but the victim was sent to him/her, and he/she left the side part of the victim's movement because he/she was sent to him/her, and later, he/she was forced to walk the part of the victim's bridge at several times.

Therefore, it is just that the court below found the defendant guilty because the defendant's act does not constitute self-defense, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts.

B. The lower court rendered a sentence by comprehensively taking account of various circumstances as indicated in its reasoning.

In addition to the circumstances indicated by the lower court, no new circumstance exists to change the sentence of the lower court in the trial, and even considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s sentencing seems to be too unreasonable.